ASTERIA BAUTISTA, MAXIMA LOMIBAO, FRANCISCO LOMIBAO, JOSE LOMIBAO, FELISA LOMIBAO AND PAULINA LOMIBAO, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. EPIFANIO SABINIANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GUARD…

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan in civil case No. 0516, holding that the donations
made by Alberto G. Bautista in favor of Marcelina and Candida surnamed Sabiniano
and Alfredo de Guzman are invalid for lack of acceptance on the part of said
donees who were minors but valid in favor of Atanacio Lomibao who was of age at
the time he accepted the donation in his favor, ordering the defendants
Marcelina Sabiniano, Candida Sabiniano and Alfredo de Guzman to surrender to the
plaintiffs, who are the lawful heirs of the deceased Alberto G. Bautista, the
parcels of land in their possession by virtue of the deed of conditional
donation, without special pronouncement as to costs. The other two defendants,
Epifanio Sabiniano and Leonora Cansino, were joined, because the first is the
father of the minor defendants Marcelina and Candida Sabiniano, who accepted the
donation in their behalf, and the second is the mother of the minor Alfredo de
Guzman who accepted the donation in his behalf. The appeal was filed by Epifanio
Sabiniano in behalf of his minor children Marcelina and Candida Sabiniano.
Leonora Cansino did not appeal and the plaintiffs also did not appeal from that
part of the judgment which held valid the donation in favor of Atanacio Lomibao
who was of age at the time he accepted the donation.

The deed of donation reads as follows:

DEED OF CONDITIONAL DONATION

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

That I, ALBERTO G. BAUTISTA, Filipino, of legal age, widower
and a resident of the barrio of Buenlag, Binmaley, Pangasinan, Philippines, for
and in consideration of my love and affection, and services rendered by
Marcelina Sabiniano, 18 years old, and Candida Sabiniano, 13 years old, both
single, daughters of Epifanio Sabiniano and Maxima Sabiniano (deceased), said
Marcelina Sabiniano and Candida Sabiniano are represented for and in their
behalf by their stated father, Epifanio Sabiniano in this regard, who is also a
Filipino, of legal age, married for the second nuptial to Andrada Sabiniano, all
residents of the barrio of Buenlag, Binmaley, Pangasinan, Philippines; Atanacio
Lomibao, Filipino, of legal age, married to Corazon Decena and a resident of the
same place; and Alfredo de Guzman, Filipino, 2 1/2 years old, single and a resident
of the barrio of Nagpalangan, Binmaley, Pangasinan, Philippines, represented for
and in his behalf by his mother Leonora Cansino, wife of Andres de Guzman
(deceased) Filipina, of legal age, widow and a resident of the same place, of
the ward, with sound mind and without any influence, force, threat, surprise or
intimidation, hereby voluntarily convey, cede, give, donate and transfer by way
of conditional donation in favor of the said abovementioned donees the following
properties to wit:

1. To Marcelina Sabiniano and Candida Sabiniano, the following
properties are donated to them to be divided by each equally share and share
alike:

(Here follows the description of the properties donated to
Marcelina Sabiniano and Candida Sabiniano.)

2. To Atanacio Lomibao, married to Corazon Decena, the
following property is donated to him:

(Here follows the description of the property donated
toAtanacio Lomibao.)

3. To Alfredo de Guzman, minor and represented by his mother
Leonora Cansino, the following property is donated:

(Here follows the description of the property donated to
Alfredo de Guzman.)

That I am making this donation in favor of the herein stated
donees with the following conditions:

1. That meantime I am still living, these properties donated
are all yet at my disposal as well as the products therein derived, and whatever
properties or property left undisposed by me during my lifetime will be the ones
to be received by the donees if any;

2. That in case of my illness, I have still the perfect right to
dispose said properties if necessary to finance all the expenses to be incurred
for my sustenance and medical treatment, and whatever left, if any, of these
properties will be the one to be received by the herein donees;

3. That in case of my unexpected death, the herein donees will
execute the disposal or if they are still minors by their respective
representatives or administrators to pay all the debts incurred by me during my
lifetime or illness, if any, and to finance my funeral services or ceremonies in
the Roman Catholic Church decently, and whatever properties or property in my
favor will be the ones to be received by the herein donees.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand this 7th day of
September, 1948, in Binmaley, Pangasinan, Philippines.

(Sgd.) ALBERTO G. BAUTISTA SIGNED

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

(Sgd.) Illegible (JUAN GUERRERO)
(Sgd.) MODESTO BAUTISTA

ACCEPTANCE

That we, Epifanio Sabiniano, acting for and in behalf of my
daughters, Marcelina Sabiniano and Candida Sabiniano, who are minors, Atanacio
Lomibao for and in my behalf, and Leonora Cansino, acting for and in behalf of
ray son Alfredo de Guzman who is minor, do hereby by these presents accept the
donations given by the donor, and hereby further extend our gratitude due to the
generosity of the donor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we hereto set our hands this 7th day of
September, 1948, in Binmaley, Pangasinan, Philippines.

(Sgd.) EMFANIO SABINIANO
(Sgd,) ATANACIO LOMIBAO
(Sgd.) LEONORA CANSINO

(Here follows the acknowledgment before the Notary Public.)

The trial court found that the donation is conditional and
onerous, because the donor “continued to be the owner of the properties donated
in spite of the donation” and “because the donees were made to pay under their
personal responsibility all the debts of the donor incurred by him during his
lifetime or illness, and to finance his funeral services upon his death,” and
held that it is null and void as to Marcelina and Candida surnamed Sabiniano and
Alfredo de Guzman, who were minors and were not duly represented by their legal
representatives upon the acceptance of the donation.

It is contended that the donation is pure and even if it be
onerous or conditional the same is valid because the acceptance was made by
their parents.

The view we take of the terms of the deed entitled “Conditional
Donation” under consideration and analysis renders it unnecessary to dissert on
the nature, character and effects of a pure act of generosity or a simple
donation, of remuneratory or compensatory and of conditional or onerous
donations—a charge, gravamen or obligation imposed upon the donee less in value
than that of the property donated—as well as of those with a term or subject to
suspensive or resolutory condition—there being a clear distinction between
disposition and execution. The conveyance to the donees by way of donation of
the properties described in the deed did not actually take effect on the date of
the execution of the deed and of the acceptance thereof for the reason hereafter
to be stated. It is also unnecessary to express opinion on whether the
acceptance made in the deed is lawful and valid, for the reason that the owner
reserved during his lifetime the right to dispose of the properties purportedly
donated and to benefit from the products thereof. Except in the instances
expressly provided by law, such as the subsequent birth of children of the
donor, failure by the donee to comply with the conditions imposed, ingratitude
of the donee and reduction of the donation in the event of inofficiousness
thereof, a donation is irrevocable. If the donor reserves the right to revoke it
or if he reserves the right to dispose of all the properties purportedly
donated, there is no donation. If the disposition or conveyance or transfer
takes effect upon the donor’s death and becomes irrevocable only upon his death,
it is not an inter vivos but a mortis causa donation. The disposition of the
properties in favor of the appellants not having been done in accord with the
provisions of section 618 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended, there was
no lawful and valid transmission thereof to them.

There is no merit in the contention that when the plaintiffs
moved for the dismissal of their complaint the trial court should have
dismissed it, because the motion to dismiss was made upon certain technical
grounds which need not be restated and because after answer the dis missal of
the complaint lies within the discretion of the trial court.

Upon the foregoing grounds the judgment appealed from rendered
against the appellants Marcelina and Candida surnamed Sabiniano, represented by
Epifanio Sabiniano, their guardian ad litem, is affirmed. No costs shall be
taxed.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo,
and Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

PADILLA, J.:

This case is again before us on motion for reconsideration.

Appellants draw our attention to article 639 of the Civil Code which provides that “The donor may reserve to himself the right to dispose of some of the property bestowed as a gift or to encumber it with a charge for the payment of money;” and to article 634 of the same code which provides that “A donation may include all the present property of the donor or part thereof, provided he reserves, in full ownership, or in usufruct, an amount sufficient to support him in a manner appropriate to his station;” and contend that the consideration of the donation was the love and affection and services rendered by the donees, the appellants, and not the death of the donor; that the right to dispose of the property donated is authorized by article 639 referred to; and that the right of usufruct which may be reserved pursuant to article 634 is more extensive than the reservation to receive products of the lands donated.

All the reasons advanced in the motion for reconsideration were considered and taken into account when the case was decided on the merits.

In the case of Balaqui et al. vs. Dongso et al., 53 Phil. 673, invoked by the appellants, this Court held that the donation was inter vivos, despite the fact that the title to the property donated did not pass to the donee during the donor’s lifetime, because of the undertaking made by the latter to answer to the donee, his heirs and successors for the title to the property donated. In the opinion of this Court the latter clause annulled the former. And the case decided by the Supreme Court of Spain on 28 January 1898 cited to support the Court’s rule involved or dealt with a donation or dowry of 80,000 reales made in a marriage settlement, given out of the donor’s pure generosity and to recipient’s deserts and not in consideration of death or peril, though the delivery of the amount donated was deferred after the donor’s death.

If the donor reserves the right to dispose of all and not some of the property purportedly donated he in effect reserves the right to revoke it, because if it be held to be a donation and therefore title thereto passed to the donee, the donor could no longer dispose of it. To enable him to dispose of it he must reacquire the title to the property by conveyance to him by the donee. If the donor can dispose of it without need of reacquiring from the donee title thereto because title did not pass to the latter the reservation of the right to dispose of all the properties donated is in effect a reservation of a right to revoke the purported donation totally or partially.

Manresa’s comment quoted by the appellants in the printed motion does not bolster up their contention, for it says:

Aunque el que se reserva el derecho de disponer de una cosa sin subordinar la reserva a condicion alguna, en realidad se reserva el dominio sobre ella, * * * la donacion produce efectos en vida del donante, transmitiendose, al menos, un derecho de usufructo o un dominio revocable; * * * (Italics supplied; p. 15, appellants’ motion for reconsideration.)

In the instant case the donor not only reserved in two paragraphs the dominio sobre ella but the derecho de usufructo as well.^[1]

Motion for reconsideration is denied.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.

---

[1]Cariño vs. Abaya, 40 Off. Gaz., No. 12, 8th Supp., 20 September 1941, p. 19; David vs. Sison, 42 Off. Gaz., 3153.